Fwd: Re: mv != (cp && rm)
From: Florin Iucha <florin_at_iucha.net>
Date: 2001-11-28 02:29:50 CET
<I apologize if I add more noise to the list, but this is my 10k feet opinion:>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 05:01:22PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
Then, to me it looks like "cp && rm" is not equivalent to "mv".
For instance think of "cp && rm" vs "mv" at filesystem level, their
Is there a specific reason not to have the same behavior here?
-- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.